To be a monk in our church, you must be beyond a novice. There was a time when this wasn't the case, but we are beyond that time in our history, you can't apply the rule of the desert fathers to modern novices.

If Brother Nathanael is a monk, then tell me, who is his spiritual father? Who is his abbot? And most importantly, if Brother Nathanael is Orthodox, who is his Bishop? He needs to be under the obedience of a Bishop, otherwise he most certainly is not Orthodox.

To be a monk in our church, you must be beyond a novice. There was a time when this wasn't the case, but we are beyond that time in our history, you can't apply the rule of the desert fathers to modern novices.

If Brother Nathanael is a monk, then tell me, who is his spiritual father? Who is his abbot? And most importantly, if Brother Nathanael is Orthodox, who is his Bishop? He needs to be under the obedience of a Bishop, otherwise he most certainly is not Orthodox.

Metropolitan Hilarion (ROCOR)

That makes absolutely no sense, it says he is from Colorado, and so his Bishop should be either Bishop Alypy of Chicago or Bishop Kyrill of San Francisco. There is definitely something fishy there.

To be a monk in our church, you must be beyond a novice. There was a time when this wasn't the case, but we are beyond that time in our history, you can't apply the rule of the desert fathers to modern novices.

If Brother Nathanael is a monk, then tell me, who is his spiritual father? Who is his abbot? And most importantly, if Brother Nathanael is Orthodox, who is his Bishop? He needs to be under the obedience of a Bishop, otherwise he most certainly is not Orthodox.

Metropolitan Hilarion (ROCOR)

If you mean locol bishop, it is Archbishop Kyrill.

That makes absolutely no sense, it says he is from Colorado, and so his Bishop should be either Bishop Alypy of Chicago or Bishop Kyrill of San Francisco. There is definitely something fishy there.

To be a monk in our church, you must be beyond a novice. There was a time when this wasn't the case, but we are beyond that time in our history, you can't apply the rule of the desert fathers to modern novices.

If Brother Nathanael is a monk, then tell me, who is his spiritual father? Who is his abbot? And most importantly, if Brother Nathanael is Orthodox, who is his Bishop? He needs to be under the obedience of a Bishop, otherwise he most certainly is not Orthodox.

Metropolitan Hilarion (ROCOR)

If you mean locol bishop, it is Archbishop Kyrill.

That makes absolutely no sense, it says he is from Colorado, and so his Bishop should be either Bishop Alypy of Chicago or Bishop Kyrill of San Francisco. There is definitely something fishy there.

Hilarion is First Hierarch of ROCOR.

His local bishop is Archbishop Kyrill.

How is that fishy...?

I had asked for his Bishop. If someone were to give my Bishop I'd give my local Bishop, not the primate. If Bishop Kyrill is his local Bishop then okay. I just wonder why the heck Bishop Kyrill hasn't done anything about him yet. Then again, for all the good things about it, there are also crazy things about ROCOR.

To be a monk in our church, you must be beyond a novice. There was a time when this wasn't the case, but we are beyond that time in our history, you can't apply the rule of the desert fathers to modern novices.

If Brother Nathanael is a monk, then tell me, who is his spiritual father? Who is his abbot? And most importantly, if Brother Nathanael is Orthodox, who is his Bishop? He needs to be under the obedience of a Bishop, otherwise he most certainly is not Orthodox.

Metropolitan Hilarion (ROCOR)

If you mean locol bishop, it is Archbishop Kyrill.

That makes absolutely no sense, it says he is from Colorado, and so his Bishop should be either Bishop Alypy of Chicago or Bishop Kyrill of San Francisco. There is definitely something fishy there.

Hilarion is First Hierarch of ROCOR.

His local bishop is Archbishop Kyrill.

How is that fishy...?

I had asked for his Bishop. If someone were to give my Bishop I'd give my local Bishop, not the primate. If Bishop Kyrill is his local Bishop then okay. I just wonder why the heck Bishop Kyrill hasn't done anything about him yet. Then again, for all the good things about it, there are also crazy things about ROCOR.

Flying back to Austin this past Lent from Chicago, where I had attended the ROCOR Chicago diocese's Lenten Pastoral Retreat, the lady I sat next to on the flight said I reminded her of a monk. She asked if I knew Br. Nathanael (she knew him, or of him, by passing him mornings in some Colorado city, as he would preach and pass out things and sing and dance). I said I did not. Knowing of his odd side, I asked the lady, who was not Orthodox, maybe not even Christian, what she thought of Br. Nathanael. I truly wanted to see what her impressions were, since she had seen him so frequently. She said she and others loved Br. Nathanael. He was cheerful and kind to everyone, he did nice things for the children, always had a kind smile and an encouraging word for every person. He made each person feel special. Nor did he ever allow brutal weather or some temporary indisposition to keep him from his "appointed rounds." As she spoke of him, her face lit up with a happy glow.

It is unfortunate to see people tell untruths about Br. Nathanael and slander him, on this forum. Let's please stick to things he actually has said, and please let's not dismiss logic and reason in doing so, even if some things he says or writes seem highly charged or produce sharp reactions.

I personally can't comprehend what in the world he is doing, but I suspend my judgment. I can confirm that he receives Holy Communion in the Russian Church Abroad.

I couldn't agree more with what the lady Fr. Aidan described had said. I don't know if anyone else here has actually met Br. Nathanael, but I got a very similar impression. There is much more to him than just political and racial issues. Actually, he probably won't even bring it up in conversation unless you mention it or ask him about it. Yes, he is very passionate about those things (many of which are disagreeable), but behind it all, he is a very kind and warm man. In fact, the issues most of you know him for only came up once in discussion. The rest of the time, he seemed more interested in prayer, fasting, and assisting the other monks in their daily tasks.

Also, it is worth bring up that Br. Nathanael seemingly had no problem being at St. Anthony's, which is itself an interracial monastery. I don't buy this "Brother Nathanael is racist" nonsense.

« Last Edit: September 07, 2012, 01:49:12 AM by Ioannis Climacus »

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Devin, have you ever read anything from the "conspiracy idiots" or examined the reasons as to why they believe the things to do. While I hope that this doesn't distract too much from the conversation at hand, Operation Northwoods as a declassified document should at least make us question the morality of our own government.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

1) By definition he is a monk: A monk (from Greek: μοναχός, monachos, "single, solitary') is a person who practices religious asceticism, living either alone or with any number of other monks. A monk may be a person who decided to dedicate his life to serve the other living beings or to be an ascetic who voluntarily chooses to leave mainstream society and live his life in prayer and contemplation.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

I do not care what your RPG hadbooks say. In the Orthodox tradition the monk is the person who received the tonsure from an abbot (or a bishop). That means Nathanael Kapner's claims to be a monk groundless. Furthermore, he wears ryasa and pectoral cross unlawfully.

And it looks like that these are converts who are more fascinated with him so your generalization was a miss.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

I do not care what your RPG hadbooks say. In the Orthodox tradition the monk is the person who received the tonsure from an abbot (or a bishop). That means Nathanael Kapner's claims to be a monk groundless. Furthermore, he wears ryasa and pectoral cross unlawfully.

And it looks like that these are converts who are more fascinated with him so your generalization was a miss.

Excuse me, RPG? Do I look like a nerd? You must have me confused for a scrawny Belorussian-Pole.

St. Anthony the Great wasn't tonsured, neither St Simeon Stylites, as well as countless other monks. Or would your arrogance say they were not "true" monastics because your legalistic mind says they weren't "tonsured"?

The Russians love St. Seraphim, as a matter of fact.

Fact of the matter, your "you must be tonsured to be a monastic" argument is silly. Many monastics, including saints, weren't. So, Michał Kalina, come up with a better argument, or stop with that thing you do that truly annoys me.

St. Anthony the Great wasn't tonsured, neither St Simeon Stylites, as well as countless other monks. Or would your arrogance say they were not "true" monastics because your legalistic mind says they weren't "tonsured"?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

I didn't want to weigh in here, but a couple of points. The man in question may certainly love children, puppies and flowers. So do a lot of folks anywhere on this planet - whether they are monks or serial killers. I worked in Family Courts for years and rarely, if ever, ran into a parent or care giver who was found to be neglectful or abusive and who didn't love children on some level (I am excluding cases of sexual abuse here) or love their dogs and flowers etc...

What is troubling in this matter are the ideas he propagates via the internet. I find the racial views to be most disturbing. This is not an issue of 'free speech' - the government is not interfering with his right to an opinion or a voice. The Church however - in this case ROCOR - is not bound by the First Amendment (nor is any private employer contrary to popular legend) and as Iconodule properly notes, certain of his expressed opinions are contrary to the teachings of the Church. and they give the casual observer of our Holy Orthodox Faith the wrong impression of our body of teaching. They reinforce preconceptions that Orthodoxy is inherently 'anti' others in a wordly, secular sense - be they Jews or unbelievers or any other 'category.' For that reason - a most important one indeed - it baffles me that defense of his opinions can be viewed as a properly Orthodox Christian option.

I heard a great remark on ESPN sports talk radio yesterday that is relevant here. After a particularly ridiculously opinionated and angry caller, the host said that if he had one wish for his audience it would be that certain listeners would not view critical comments about another person as being what is called 'hating' in modern day American slang. He went on to complain that a frequent argument stopper is that 'you don't respect me' when the disagreement gets heated.

The same may be said of many of our discussions online. Disagreement is usually not 'hating' - it is simply disagreement in most cases. We always fall back on the overused maxim 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' and often we don't mean it. I don't 'hate' this man - I know little of him - I merely disagree with his world view and how he uses the Church in his attempts to legitimize his opinions. Take off the cassock, ryassa and cross and express your opinion as a man - but don't wrap yourself in the protection of the Church in an effort to add weight to your opinions. After all we are admonished by the Good Shepherd to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. (Matthew 7:15)

It is unfortunate to see people tell untruths about Br. Nathanael and slander him, on this forum. Let's please stick to things he actually has said, and please let's not dismiss logic and reason in doing so, even if some things he says or writes seem highly charged or produce sharp reactions.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as slander or untruths. If you're referring to my pointing out that Br. Nathanael is a white nationalist, I have done so using his own words from his own public videos and postings.

So I ask you, Father, if you find the following words at all compatible with the Orthodox Christian worldview:

Quote

White Identity is indeed a necessary component in resisting the nightmare of multi-racialism that the Jewish agenda brought to America and throughout Europe.

International Jewry’s objective, intent, and aim? To destroy the one force that could oppose them: namely, a White Christian political power bloc.

Quote

For in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-creedal society, only ONE minority with all the money rises to the top: American Jewry.

Quote

But, for the goyim, not only is interracial marriage acceptable, but advances the ADL’s agenda to destroy the last remaining power block that could potentially oppose Jewish hegemony, namely White Christianity.

Whether Nathanael is a nice guy is completely beside the point. He is publicly presenting his white supremacist views as Orthodox teaching and is doing so without any repercussions form the bishops of ROCOR. I would like to think that the bishops simply don't know how far he's gone. He needs to be stopped.

Logged

Quote

“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”

To be a monk in our church, you must be beyond a novice. There was a time when this wasn't the case, but we are beyond that time in our history, you can't apply the rule of the desert fathers to modern novices.

If Brother Nathanael is a monk, then tell me, who is his spiritual father? Who is his abbot? And most importantly, if Brother Nathanael is Orthodox, who is his Bishop? He needs to be under the obedience of a Bishop, otherwise he most certainly is not Orthodox.

Metropolitan Hilarion (ROCOR)

A. How do you know that +Hilarion is his bishop? Any sort of evidence would be appreciated.

B. Do you believe that you have such complete knowledge of modern monastism that, if you did not hear of it, it must not be true?

To be a monk in our church, you must be beyond a novice. There was a time when this wasn't the case, but we are beyond that time in our history, you can't apply the rule of the desert fathers to modern novices.

If Brother Nathanael is a monk, then tell me, who is his spiritual father? Who is his abbot? And most importantly, if Brother Nathanael is Orthodox, who is his Bishop? He needs to be under the obedience of a Bishop, otherwise he most certainly is not Orthodox.

Metropolitan Hilarion (ROCOR)

A. How do you know that +Hilarion is his bishop? Any sort of evidence would be appreciated.

B. Do you believe that you have such complete knowledge of modern monastism that, if you did not hear of it, it must not be true?

I said his local bishop, it is Archbishop Kyrill. I recommend reading the entirety of my posts before you intercede. And yes, I know for a fact he is.

I never said I had complete knowledge of monasticism, I was just saying what the early church practiced. All I asked for was proof, I never called anyone a liar... I'm pretty sure everyone here is claiming to know just as much, if not more, about monasticism than I, but you pick me because you have a track record with me, mature.

Very true. However, having known REAL white supremacists, Brother Nathaneal's remarks are really rather calm. The boys at Stormfront do not particularly like him, and they know a few things about white supremacists.

celtic, the thing is, we don't practice exactly as the early church did. We've evolved beyond that for various reasons.

St. Anthony and the Desert Fathers practiced only one kind of asceticism. Eventually this kind was superseded by the model throughout the rest of the Eastern Empire. The lone monk could no longer exist and had to at least regularly report to his monastery and to his abbot.

What you must realize also, is that Br. Nathanael is not even practicing the ancient desert model. If he were, we wouldn't ever see him, ever. The desert model wasn't go on your own and go into the very midst of the cities calling attention to yourself on the streets, and in his case, also on the internet. Instead, the desert model was going off into caves and into the wilderness to practice your asceticism. No one ever saw you, and you never saw anyone except for maybe fellow monastics. Nearly your entire life was spent in prayer and reflection.

Also, as mentioned before, Br. Nathanael also wrongly wears a pectoral cross. This is only permitted for ordained clergy who are Priests or higher.

It also seems, by a lot of his actions, that he is trying to play the role of holy fool. The model of holy fool is not a model which purposely calls attention to yourself. It isn't about being a fool for the sake of silliness. The holy fool is a person who is a person who has attained high levels of theosis. Yet his holiness is somewhat masked by various actions which always manifest God, his glory and his will to other humans. The holy fool is also known by almost everyone to be a holy, sane and pious person. He only feigns insanity hide his own holiness.

Br. Nathanael is simply acting silly on a street corner. We can also presume that Br. Nathanael is using his street evangelism to tell more people about the grand conspiracy of the Jewish Zionists and the New World Order. This is not the model of a holy fool.

_________________________________

In the Eastern Orthodox Church today, our practices have evolved from the early models. There have been too many monastics abusing their isolation and other circumstances which have almost abolished the model of the desert.

There was a monk who sought to create a male monastery near my home parish. It didn't come to fruition because the man, although an Orthodox monk, didn't practice asceticism as required by our church. He traveled around the nation never staying in one place and not practicing normal asceticism.

Also at the same time, we can argue that most of our Bishops are not practicing monasticism. That is the simple truth.

_________________________________

As for his supposed "White supremacism", I don't think that is the case. Br. Nathanael isn't a white supremacist, but he is still a dolt when it comes to conspiracy theories. Yes, the Jews want a Jewish nation and they have one. However, there is not some grand conspiracy of Zionists, Freemasons, Illuminati or others who are trying to control the world and create a New World Order.

One has to wonder how much weight Br. Nathanael puts on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Sadly, too many in the MP and ROCOR still put weight on this document, which, as it has been proven, is a false, forged document. It's a disgrace to all Orthodox Christians that some Orthodox still believe it is authentic and true.

The Holocaust wasn't a grand Jewish conspiracy. Millions of Jews did die (though it probably wasn't the 6 million oft quoted) and were actively exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis. This is an undeniable fact in this day and age. If you deny it, you aren't a white supremacist, but you are anti-semetic. We can be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism without being anti-semetic. Br. Nathanael takes it way too far.

celtic, the thing is, we don't practice exactly as the early church did. We've evolved beyond that for various reasons.

St. Anthony and the Desert Fathers practiced only one kind of asceticism. Eventually this kind was superseded by the model throughout the rest of the Eastern Empire. The lone monk could no longer exist and had to at least regularly report to his monastery and to his abbot.

What you must realize also, is that Br. Nathanael is not even practicing the ancient desert model. If he were, we wouldn't ever see him, ever. The desert model wasn't go on your own and go into the very midst of the cities calling attention to yourself on the streets, and in his case, also on the internet. Instead, the desert model was going off into caves and into the wilderness to practice your asceticism. No one ever saw you, and you never saw anyone except for maybe fellow monastics. Nearly your entire life was spent in prayer and reflection.

Also, as mentioned before, Br. Nathanael also wrongly wears a pectoral cross. This is only permitted for ordained clergy who are Priests or higher.

It also seems, by a lot of his actions, that he is trying to play the role of holy fool. The model of holy fool is not a model which purposely calls attention to yourself. It isn't about being a fool for the sake of silliness. The holy fool is a person who is a person who has attained high levels of theosis. Yet his holiness is somewhat masked by various actions which always manifest God, his glory and his will to other humans. The holy fool is also known by almost everyone to be a holy, sane and pious person. He only feigns insanity hide his own holiness.

Br. Nathanael is simply acting silly on a street corner. We can also presume that Br. Nathanael is using his street evangelism to tell more people about the grand conspiracy of the Jewish Zionists and the New World Order. This is not the model of a holy fool.

_________________________________

In the Eastern Orthodox Church today, our practices have evolved from the early models. There have been too many monastics abusing their isolation and other circumstances which have almost abolished the model of the desert.

There was a monk who sought to create a male monastery near my home parish. It didn't come to fruition because the man, although an Orthodox monk, didn't practice asceticism as required by our church. He traveled around the nation never staying in one place and not practicing normal asceticism.

Also at the same time, we can argue that most of our Bishops are not practicing monasticism. That is the simple truth.

_________________________________

As for his supposed "White supremacism", I don't think that is the case. Br. Nathanael isn't a white supremacist, but he is still a dolt when it comes to conspiracy theories. Yes, the Jews want a Jewish nation and they have one. However, there is not some grand conspiracy of Zionists, Freemasons, Illuminati or others who are trying to control the world and create a New World Order.

One has to wonder how much weight Br. Nathanael puts on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Sadly, too many in the MP and ROCOR still put weight on this document, which, as it has been proven, is a false, forged document. It's a disgrace to all Orthodox Christians that some Orthodox still believe it is authentic and true.

The Holocaust wasn't a grand Jewish conspiracy. Millions of Jews did die (though it probably wasn't the 6 million oft quoted) and were actively exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis. This is an undeniable fact in this day and age. If you deny it, you aren't a white supremacist, but you are anti-semetic. We can be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism without being anti-semetic. Br. Nathanael takes it way too far.

Br. Nathanael continues to be called a white supremacist, although no one has been able to find a single sentence of his, which expresses white supremacy. I find that to be very telling. In fact, it says more about the people bandying that term about, than it says about Br. Nathanael.

The logical pitfalls of Political Correctness may be seen in the reactions some people have to this idea of a White Christian Political Power Bloc. If an African Christian were calling for an African Christian Political Power Bloc to help protect against the powers of Animist rulers or even Muslim Brotherhoods, none of us would blink an eye. Same if we heard about some call for a League of Arab Christians to protect against the force of Muslim Brotherhoods or despotic secular regimes. It's quite the double standard.

If anyone is unaware that there is a cabal of ultra-powerful bankers, mostly or seminally Jewish, who are very far along in their plans to create a despotic and cruel One World Government, something abundantly documented and easily provable, then that person really needs to get out of the house a little more.

I think the Protocols are fake, but the Mishnah and Talmud contain enough horrible things to eliminate any need to fabricate anything.

With love for all Jewish people and all debaters on this forum, as well as all Orthodox Christians, and all Muslims, and people of any and all ethnic groups ("races" don't really exist in any ultimately measurable form, so I won't include "races" here).

If anyone is unaware that there is a cabal of ultra-powerful bankers, mostly or seminally Jewish, who are very far along in their plans to create a despotic and cruel One World Government, something abundantly documented and easily provable, then that person really needs to get out of the house a little more.

I think the Protocols are fake, but the Mishnah and Talmud contain enough horrible things to eliminate any need to fabricate anything.

You're insane if you truly believe they want a one-world government. Which by the way, is something the Bible says nothing about, and isn't connected to the Anti-Christ.

If it is abundantly documented and provable, then prove it.

If people in ROCOR actually believe this bunk, then I don't know what to say, they are crazier than I thought. Talk about Hyperdox Herman.

The Holocaust wasn't a grand Jewish conspiracy. Millions of Jews did die (though it probably wasn't the 6 million oft quoted) and were actively exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis. This is an undeniable fact in this day and age. If you deny it, you aren't a white supremacist, but you are anti-semetic. We can be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism without being anti-semetic. Br. Nathanael takes it way too far.

Seeing as the Holocaust accounts record that various other groups were targeted, your logic would imply that a "denier" is likewise anti-Slav, anti-Gay, anti-Mason, anti-Roma, anti-Communist, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Catholic, etc. Whatever happened in those camps (and there are very problematic evidence hurdles out there for those who push the official story), it was not a uniquely Jewish experience. Even if it was, however, it would not follow that a "denier" would be anti-Semite. Any more than denying the moon landing makes one anti-American or denying the Robin Hood accounts makes one anti-English.

But on the topic of Br. Nathanael, is he even a "denier"? I don't really keep up with him anymore, but last I remember, he was in the camp that suggested that Zionists perpetuated it to jump start a much larger Zionist movement.

« Last Edit: September 07, 2012, 02:45:06 PM by Ioannis Climacus »

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

This is absurd. The entire concept of "white identity" as "a necessary component in resisting the nightmare of multi-racialism" is blatantly white supremacist. Anyone who can't see this is profoundly naive or dishonest.

Br. Nathanael continues to be called a white supremacist, although no one has been able to find a single sentence of his, which expresses white supremacy. I find that to be very telling. In fact, it says more about the people bandying that term about, than it says about Br. Nathanael.

Brother Nathanael, in this video (which I have posted twice here already and which I recommend you watch) offers pointers to the "white nationalist movement" in how they can become more relevant and influential. Note: he does not at all criticize white nationalism per se, but points to its lack of grounding in Christianity as pitfall. He says:

Quote

For White Nationalism to be viable movement that reaches beyond posting a few words of internet bravado using a fake handler’s name it must begin with understanding the Christian roots of White nations.

So Nathanael does not oppose white nationalism, he just wants to strengthen it by re-establishing it on the basis of "Christianity."

Quote

The logical pitfalls of Political Correctness may be seen in the reactions some people have to this idea of a White Christian Political Power Bloc. If an African Christian were calling for an African Christian Political Power Bloc to help protect against the powers of Animist rulers or even Muslim Brotherhoods, none of us would blink an eye.

No, because it is not comparable. Africa is a continent, not a race, and the animists and Muslim Brotherhoods are on that same continent. Your analogy is silly.

Quote

Same if we heard about some call for a League of Arab Christians to protect against the force of Muslim Brotherhoods or despotic secular regimes. It's quite the double standard.

Arabs of one religion organizing against (predominately) Arabs of another religion is again completely different from "White Christians" organizing against the Jews and their "nightmare of multi-racialism."

Quote

("races" don't really exist in any ultimately measurable form, so I won't include "races" here).

The white supremacist "Brother" Nathanael does not share your reluctance to talk about race.

Some questions for you Father:

Do you believe "white identity" and a "White Christian Power Bloc" (not just a Christian power bloc, mind you, but a WHITE one) is necessary in resisting international Jewry?

Do you believe the mixture of races in American society is detrimental to Christianity and part of the Jewish elite's plot to undermine the Church?

Do you believe interracial marriage is likewise a tool of the Jews to undermine Christendom?

Do you believe any of the above opinions are compatible with a Christian worldview?

Logged

Quote

“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”

The Holocaust wasn't a grand Jewish conspiracy. Millions of Jews did die (though it probably wasn't the 6 million oft quoted) and were actively exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis. This is an undeniable fact in this day and age. If you deny it, you aren't a white supremacist, but you are anti-semetic. We can be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism without being anti-semetic. Br. Nathanael takes it way too far.

Seeing as the Holocaust accounts record that various other groups were targeted, your logic would imply that a "denier" is likewise anti-Slav, anti-Gay, anti-Mason, anti-Roma, anti-Communist, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Catholic, etc. Whatever happened in those camps (and there are very problematic evidence hurdles out there for those who push the official story), it was not a uniquely Jewish experience. Even if it was, however, it would not follow that a "denier" would be anti-Semite. Any more than denying the moon landing makes one anti-American or denying the Robin Hood accounts makes one anti-English.

But on the topic of Br. Nathanael, is he even a "denier"? I don't really keep up with him anymore, but last I remember, he was in the camp that suggested that Zionists perpetuated it to jump start a much larger Zionist movement.

Br. Nathanael argues in one of his videos that it was only a mere few thousand Jews who were killed, and that the Nazi Party didn't specifically seek to kill & exterminate the Jews.

Yes, the Jews were one group among many, and capitalized on the tragedy and used it to their advantage. But that doesn't mean they weren't specifically pointed out and targeted by the Nazis more especially than the other groups targeted.

I am searching for a sort of FAQ about the plans for a One World Government. It's def. a story that has gone "mainstream" in major media outlets, which is very different from the times of my youth. I am searching for something clear and pithy.

To answer some questions: Only one thing is necessary to resist evil powers of whatever kind, and that is prayer and faith and love. I do not see any underlying religious effect from racially mixed marriages. I don't see anything wrong with them. In the case of intermarriages between Anglos and Hispanics, the likeliest demographic effect is to influence the Anglos TOWARDS Christianity. Our Church has no rules against interracial marriages, unlike the Greek Archdiocese in the 1960s/1970s, when publications indicated they banned interracial marriage (at least back then). Was this stance of the GOA incompatible with Christianity? Not sure. The only things ultimately irreconcilable with Christianity are clear heresies and clear violations of Christian morality. Marriage policies have changed and shifted across time, in our Church. There was a big shift in about 450 and another big shift in about 680, for example.

I entirely disagree with this concept that only a few thousand Jews were killed by the Nazi power, and that they did not target Jews. It's ridiculous. Also ridiculous: the statement, glibly repeated by the whole of American academia, that six million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust. The academics repeat that nonsense to avoid excommunication, disgrace, persecution, and impoverishment. At least there is no one standing with those "guns" to the head of anyone in America, insisting that they parrot "few thousand," "few thousand."

I am searching for a sort of FAQ about the plans for a One World Government. It's def. a story that has gone "mainstream" in major media outlets, which is very different from the times of my youth. I am searching for something clear and pithy.

To answer some questions: Only one thing is necessary to resist evil powers of whatever kind, and that is prayer and faith and love. I do not see any underlying religious effect from racially mixed marriages. I don't see anything wrong with them. In the case of intermarriages between Anglos and Hispanics, the likeliest demographic effect is to influence the Anglos TOWARDS Christianity. Our Church has no rules against interracial marriages, unlike the Greek Archdiocese in the 1960s/1970s, when publications indicated they banned interracial marriage (at least back then). Was this stance of the GOA incompatible with Christianity? Not sure. The only things ultimately irreconcilable with Christianity are clear heresies and clear violations of Christian morality. Marriage policies have changed and shifted across time, in our Church. There was a big shift in about 450 and another big shift in about 680, for example.

I entirely disagree with this concept that only a few thousand Jews were killed by the Nazi power, and that they did not target Jews. It's ridiculous. Also ridiculous: the statement, glibly repeated by the whole of American academia, that six million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust. The academics repeat that nonsense to avoid excommunication, disgrace, persecution, and impoverishment. At least there is no one standing with those "guns" to the head of anyone in America, insisting that they parrot "few thousand," "few thousand."

I really doubt the GOA banned interracial marriages in the 60s & 70s. Ever hear of this guy?

To be a monk in our church, you must be beyond a novice. There was a time when this wasn't the case, but we are beyond that time in our history, you can't apply the rule of the desert fathers to modern novices.

If Brother Nathanael is a monk, then tell me, who is his spiritual father? Who is his abbot? And most importantly, if Brother Nathanael is Orthodox, who is his Bishop? He needs to be under the obedience of a Bishop, otherwise he most certainly is not Orthodox.

Metropolitan Hilarion (ROCOR)

A. How do you know that +Hilarion is his bishop? Any sort of evidence would be appreciated.

B. Do you believe that you have such complete knowledge of modern monastism that, if you did not hear of it, it must not be true?

I said his local bishop, it is Archbishop Kyrill. I recommend reading the entirety of my posts before you intercede. And yes, I know for a fact he is.

I never said I had complete knowledge of monasticism, I was just saying what the early church practiced. All I asked for was proof, I never called anyone a liar... I'm pretty sure everyone here is claiming to know just as much, if not more, about monasticism than I, but you pick me because you have a track record with me, mature.

So you are 0-2 on accusations.

And so are you.

1. Carl didn't accuse you of anything.2. Carl's not picking on you because of any history he has with you, simply because he's not picking on you.

You've now snapped at three different people the last couple of days. Don't you think it's time you stepped back and calmed down a bit?

If anyone is unaware that there is a cabal of ultra-powerful bankers, mostly or seminally Jewish, who are very far along in their plans to create a despotic and cruel One World Government, something abundantly documented and easily provable, then that person really needs to get out of the house a little more.

I think the Protocols are fake, but the Mishnah and Talmud contain enough horrible things to eliminate any need to fabricate anything.

You're insane if you truly believe they want a one-world government. Which by the way, is something the Bible says nothing about, and isn't connected to the Anti-Christ.

If it is abundantly documented and provable, then prove it.

If people in ROCOR actually believe this bunk, then I don't know what to say, they are crazier than I thought. Talk about Hyperdox Herman.

Devin--We all know that this is a free-for-all forum, but please, I ask you as a fellow forum member and not as the section moderator, to control your temper a bit. Calling priests insane and other Orthodox jurisdictions crazy is not seemly even a free-for-all section of an Orthodox web site. Besides, this is not good for your health. Do not force me to lock this thread up for a time to let tempers cool. Please.

The Holocaust wasn't a grand Jewish conspiracy. Millions of Jews did die (though it probably wasn't the 6 million oft quoted) and were actively exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis. This is an undeniable fact in this day and age. If you deny it, you aren't a white supremacist, but you are anti-semetic. We can be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism without being anti-semetic. Br. Nathanael takes it way too far.

Seeing as the Holocaust accounts record that various other groups were targeted, your logic would imply that a "denier" is likewise anti-Slav, anti-Gay, anti-Mason, anti-Roma, anti-Communist, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Catholic, etc. Whatever happened in those camps (and there are very problematic evidence hurdles out there for those who push the official story), it was not a uniquely Jewish experience. Even if it was, however, it would not follow that a "denier" would be anti-Semite. Any more than denying the moon landing makes one anti-American or denying the Robin Hood accounts makes one anti-English.

But on the topic of Br. Nathanael, is he even a "denier"? I don't really keep up with him anymore, but last I remember, he was in the camp that suggested that Zionists perpetuated it to jump start a much larger Zionist movement.

There is a subtlety in your argument that I am not getting Ioannis.

The subhumans (Untermensch: Slavs, Jews, Roma, etc) were targeted for extermination and culling, primarily by starvation. The Poles and the Jews were the first to go. Catholic sympathizers of the subhumans with Germanic blood would likely not be tolerated as well.

There are two possibilities that I see off hand. (1) A holocaust denier is antisemitic and clueless that Slavs (for example) are subhuman as well. (2) The denier is a "white Aryan" supremacist-type person. I should note that when I was looking for forums that discussed Eastern Orthodoxy back in 2002-3 most of the links seemed to lead to these white Aryan supremacist groups. At least that was my shocked impression.

There are certainly other possibilities and one of them is probably yours.

The Holocaust wasn't a grand Jewish conspiracy. Millions of Jews did die (though it probably wasn't the 6 million oft quoted) and were actively exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis. This is an undeniable fact in this day and age. If you deny it, you aren't a white supremacist, but you are anti-semetic. We can be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism without being anti-semetic. Br. Nathanael takes it way too far.

Seeing as the Holocaust accounts record that various other groups were targeted, your logic would imply that a "denier" is likewise anti-Slav, anti-Gay, anti-Mason, anti-Roma, anti-Communist, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Catholic, etc. Whatever happened in those camps (and there are very problematic evidence hurdles out there for those who push the official story), it was not a uniquely Jewish experience. Even if it was, however, it would not follow that a "denier" would be anti-Semite. Any more than denying the moon landing makes one anti-American or denying the Robin Hood accounts makes one anti-English.

But on the topic of Br. Nathanael, is he even a "denier"? I don't really keep up with him anymore, but last I remember, he was in the camp that suggested that Zionists perpetuated it to jump start a much larger Zionist movement.

There is a subtlety in your argument that I am not getting Ioannis.

The subhumans (Untermensch: Slavs, Jews, Roma, etc) were targeted for extermination and culling, primarily by starvation. The Poles and the Jews were the first to go. Catholic sympathizers of the subhumans with Germanic blood would likely not be tolerated as well.

There are two possibilities that I see off hand. (1) A holocaust denier is antisemitic and clueless that Slavs (for example) are subhuman as well. (2) The denier is a "white Aryan" supremacist-type person. I should note that when I was looking for forums that discussed Eastern Orthodoxy back in 2002-3 most of the links seemed to lead to these white Aryan supremacist groups. At least that was my shocked impression.

There are certainly other possibilities and one of them is probably yours.

1) How can you say they are both anti-Semitic and clueless? You are trying so hard to throw people in the anti-Semitic category it doesn't make sense.

2) I've met deniers who are white and are certainly not "white supremacists", and I've met deniers who were black (and even Jews!).

Saying one of them is probably him is very judgmental of a person you do not even know anything about.

You think incorrectly throwing out the term "anti-Semitic" automatically makes there argument moot...it doesn't because you don't know how to correctly use that term.

Some holocaust deniers just question why THAT PARTICULAR incident is more pushed in people's face than any other genocide. I'm not a denier of the Holocaust in any right (although I certainly don't think the number of Jewish deaths were 6 million, as it is impossible) (I don't believe it is right to kill any group of people; Jews, Blacks, Whites, Asians, etc), but I don't think it is fair to say the holocaust was better/worse than any other genocide. If I denied the "holocaust" of Ukrainians or Native Americans NO ONE WOULD COMPLAIN AS MUCH AS DENYING THE BLOODY HOLOCAUST. So you better attack deniers of any genocide the same as Holocaust deniers or you are the world's worst hypocrites.

The Holocaust wasn't a grand Jewish conspiracy. Millions of Jews did die (though it probably wasn't the 6 million oft quoted) and were actively exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis. This is an undeniable fact in this day and age. If you deny it, you aren't a white supremacist, but you are anti-semetic. We can be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism without being anti-semetic. Br. Nathanael takes it way too far.

Seeing as the Holocaust accounts record that various other groups were targeted, your logic would imply that a "denier" is likewise anti-Slav, anti-Gay, anti-Mason, anti-Roma, anti-Communist, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Catholic, etc. Whatever happened in those camps (and there are very problematic evidence hurdles out there for those who push the official story), it was not a uniquely Jewish experience. Even if it was, however, it would not follow that a "denier" would be anti-Semite. Any more than denying the moon landing makes one anti-American or denying the Robin Hood accounts makes one anti-English.

But on the topic of Br. Nathanael, is he even a "denier"? I don't really keep up with him anymore, but last I remember, he was in the camp that suggested that Zionists perpetuated it to jump start a much larger Zionist movement.

There is a subtlety in your argument that I am not getting Ioannis.

The subhumans (Untermensch: Slavs, Jews, Roma, etc) were targeted for extermination and culling, primarily by starvation. The Poles and the Jews were the first to go. Catholic sympathizers of the subhumans with Germanic blood would likely not be tolerated as well.

There are two possibilities that I see off hand. (1) A holocaust denier is antisemitic and clueless that Slavs (for example) are subhuman as well. (2) The denier is a "white Aryan" supremacist-type person. I should note that when I was looking for forums that discussed Eastern Orthodoxy back in 2002-3 most of the links seemed to lead to these white Aryan supremacist groups. At least that was my shocked impression.

There are certainly other possibilities and one of them is probably yours.

1) How can you say they are both anti-Semitic and clueless? You are trying so hard to throw people in the anti-Semitic category it doesn't make sense.

2) I've met deniers who are white and are certainly not "white supremacists", and I've met deniers who were black (and even Jews!).

Saying one of them is probably him is very judgmental of a person you do not even know anything about.

You think incorrectly throwing out the term "anti-Semitic" automatically makes there argument moot...it doesn't because you don't know how to correctly use that term.

Some holocaust deniers just question why THAT PARTICULAR incident is more pushed in people's face than any other genocide. I'm not a denier of the Holocaust in any right (although I certainly don't think the number of Jewish deaths were 6 million, as it is impossible) (I don't believe it is right to kill any group of people; Jews, Blacks, Whites, Asians, etc), but I don't think it is fair to say the holocaust was better/worse than any other genocide. If I denied the "holocaust" of Ukrainians or Native Americans NO ONE WOULD COMPLAIN AS MUCH AS DENYING THE BLOODY HOLOCAUST. So you better attack deniers of any genocide the same as Holocaust deniers or you are the world's worst hypocrites.

The actions of the Third Reich will remain among the greatest of crimes against humanity for a number of reasons.

The German people allowed their political leadership to devolve into insanity. Why this is significant from an historical point of view can be summed up rather succinctly - the Germans were probably the best educated people in western Europe coming into the mid-20th century. Their culture, their musical genius, their industriousness, their scientific accomplishments m their philosophers and yes - their military and political acumen placed Germany at the pinnacle of 20th century Western Civilization in the eyes of many commentators of the time and many historians. The way in which such a highly esteemed culture and 'body politic' was able to dive into the depths of evil and depravity should trouble all of us in the west - including the United States. The Jews had, to all appearances, been assimilated into German culture and the German mind-set in a manner not seen in the rest of Europe. While the vile nationalism of Aryanism had some adherents prior to Weimar and the Nazi election (yes - the Nazi's took power via election and were asked to form a government) but never to the degree where anyone thought it had the power to seize power and control the destiny of a great people.

The sheer scale of what the Nazis did over a period of nearly ten years and the manner in which the industrial, communications, transportation and military powers of the state were marshalled to this incredible evil was remarkable - while at the same time engaging in a two continent, multi-front war which ravaged the west for seven years of total war. It is frightening and must be remembered lest we allow such a thing to ever occur again.

Finally, we have documentary evidence from the first hand accounts of tens of thousands of Allied troops who liberated the camps - American, British, French, Russian and other allied soldiers - Christians, Jews, atheists, communists, royalists, whites, blacks, Asian-Americans - you name it.... If you believe it all to be a conspiracy - well so be it - but you and those who think like you - delude yourselves and deny that which is real.

Finally the Holocaust was not just directed at Jews - Slavs, Roma, the mentally ill, the homosexuals, Allied prisoners of war (particularly Russians and Ukrainians), valiant resistance fighters (many of whom resettled in America after the communist take overs in Eastern Europe and men and women I was proud to get to know - the bravery of simple people never ceases to amaze and inspire me) and many, many men and women of Faith - both Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics and Protestants who took a stand against evil when most looked the other way.

Be on the wrong side of history and be on the side of ignorance and fantasy. It's a free country - but beware of the burdens of history - for those who forget its lessons are sure to repeat its mistakes.

I would just close with a link to this article about the German theologians of the time, Niehbur, Tillich and Bonhoeffer - it is worth reading and praying for their souls and the souls of all who suffered persecution under the Third Reich. Deniers dishonor their sacrifice and the sacrifices of millions of our countrymen and our allies who served the cause of freedom in the Great War by giving the last full measure of devotion. http://www.thefix.com/content/serenity-prayers-desperate-origins-Niehbur-Bonhoeffer-Tillich9965

Finally, I know that none of this will change the minds or hearts of the so-called deniers or the minimizers. So be it, but to remain silent in the face of their claims is to repeat the sin of the majority of good Germans who looked the other way until it was too late.

Finally, we have documentary evidence from the first hand accounts of tens of thousands of Allied troops who liberated the camps - American, British, French, Russian and other allied soldiers - Christians, Jews, atheists, communists, royalists, whites, blacks, Asian-Americans - you name it.... If you believe it all to be a conspiracy - well so be it - but you and those who think like you - delude yourselves and deny that which is real.

Be on the wrong side of history and be on the side of ignorance and fantasy. It's a free country - but beware of the burdens of history - for those who forget its lessons are sure to repeat its mistakes.

If you aren't going to read my post, don't reply.

You really ticked me off by saying that. You are the reason internet debates turn into screaming. You built a strawman.

Be on the wrong side of history and be on the side of ignorance and fantasy. It's a free country - but beware of the burdens of history - for those who forget its lessons are sure to repeat its mistakes.

Do you know anything about this subject that you have not read in a book?

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Be on the wrong side of history and be on the side of ignorance and fantasy. It's a free country - but beware of the burdens of history - for those who forget its lessons are sure to repeat its mistakes.

Do you know anything about this subject that you have not read in a book?

The Holocaust wasn't a grand Jewish conspiracy. Millions of Jews did die (though it probably wasn't the 6 million oft quoted) and were actively exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis. This is an undeniable fact in this day and age. If you deny it, you aren't a white supremacist, but you are anti-semetic. We can be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism without being anti-semetic. Br. Nathanael takes it way too far.

Seeing as the Holocaust accounts record that various other groups were targeted, your logic would imply that a "denier" is likewise anti-Slav, anti-Gay, anti-Mason, anti-Roma, anti-Communist, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Catholic, etc. Whatever happened in those camps (and there are very problematic evidence hurdles out there for those who push the official story), it was not a uniquely Jewish experience. Even if it was, however, it would not follow that a "denier" would be anti-Semite. Any more than denying the moon landing makes one anti-American or denying the Robin Hood accounts makes one anti-English.

But on the topic of Br. Nathanael, is he even a "denier"? I don't really keep up with him anymore, but last I remember, he was in the camp that suggested that Zionists perpetuated it to jump start a much larger Zionist movement.

There is a subtlety in your argument that I am not getting Ioannis.

The subhumans (Untermensch: Slavs, Jews, Roma, etc) were targeted for extermination and culling, primarily by starvation. The Poles and the Jews were the first to go. Catholic sympathizers of the subhumans with Germanic blood would likely not be tolerated as well.

There are two possibilities that I see off hand. (1) A holocaust denier is antisemitic and clueless that Slavs (for example) are subhuman as well. (2) The denier is a "white Aryan" supremacist-type person. I should note that when I was looking for forums that discussed Eastern Orthodoxy back in 2002-3 most of the links seemed to lead to these white Aryan supremacist groups. At least that was my shocked impression.

There are certainly other possibilities and one of them is probably yours.

1) How can you say they are both anti-Semitic and clueless? You are trying so hard to throw people in the anti-Semitic category it doesn't make sense.

2) I've met deniers who are white and are certainly not "white supremacists", and I've met deniers who were black (and even Jews!).

Saying one of them is probably him is very judgmental of a person you do not even know anything about.

You think incorrectly throwing out the term "anti-Semitic" automatically makes there argument moot...it doesn't because you don't know how to correctly use that term.

Some holocaust deniers just question why THAT PARTICULAR incident is more pushed in people's face than any other genocide. I'm not a denier of the Holocaust in any right (although I certainly don't think the number of Jewish deaths were 6 million, as it is impossible) (I don't believe it is right to kill any group of people; Jews, Blacks, Whites, Asians, etc), but I don't think it is fair to say the holocaust was better/worse than any other genocide. If I denied the "holocaust" of Ukrainians or Native Americans NO ONE WOULD COMPLAIN AS MUCH AS DENYING THE BLOODY HOLOCAUST. So you better attack deniers of any genocide the same as Holocaust deniers or you are the world's worst hypocrites.

The actions of the Third Reich will remain among the greatest of crimes against humanity for a number of reasons.

The German people allowed their political leadership to devolve into insanity. Why this is significant from an historical point of view can be summed up rather succinctly - the Germans were probably the best educated people in western Europe coming into the mid-20th century. Their culture, their musical genius, their industriousness, their scientific accomplishments m their philosophers and yes - their military and political acumen placed Germany at the pinnacle of 20th century Western Civilization in the eyes of many commentators of the time and many historians. The way in which such a highly esteemed culture and 'body politic' was able to dive into the depths of evil and depravity should trouble all of us in the west - including the United States. The Jews had, to all appearances, been assimilated into German culture and the German mind-set in a manner not seen in the rest of Europe. While the vile nationalism of Aryanism had some adherents prior to Weimar and the Nazi election (yes - the Nazi's took power via election and were asked to form a government) but never to the degree where anyone thought it had the power to seize power and control the destiny of a great people.

The sheer scale of what the Nazis did over a period of nearly ten years and the manner in which the industrial, communications, transportation and military powers of the state were marshalled to this incredible evil was remarkable - while at the same time engaging in a two continent, multi-front war which ravaged the west for seven years of total war. It is frightening and must be remembered lest we allow such a thing to ever occur again.

Finally, we have documentary evidence from the first hand accounts of tens of thousands of Allied troops who liberated the camps - American, British, French, Russian and other allied soldiers - Christians, Jews, atheists, communists, royalists, whites, blacks, Asian-Americans - you name it.... If you believe it all to be a conspiracy - well so be it - but you and those who think like you - delude yourselves and deny that which is real.

Finally the Holocaust was not just directed at Jews - Slavs, Roma, the mentally ill, the homosexuals, Allied prisoners of war (particularly Russians and Ukrainians), valiant resistance fighters (many of whom resettled in America after the communist take overs in Eastern Europe and men and women I was proud to get to know - the bravery of simple people never ceases to amaze and inspire me) and many, many men and women of Faith - both Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics and Protestants who took a stand against evil when most looked the other way.

Be on the wrong side of history and be on the side of ignorance and fantasy. It's a free country - but beware of the burdens of history - for those who forget its lessons are sure to repeat its mistakes.

I would just close with a link to this article about the German theologians of the time, Niehbur, Tillich and Bonhoeffer - it is worth reading and praying for their souls and the souls of all who suffered persecution under the Third Reich. Deniers dishonor their sacrifice and the sacrifices of millions of our countrymen and our allies who served the cause of freedom in the Great War by giving the last full measure of devotion. http://www.thefix.com/content/serenity-prayers-desperate-origins-Niehbur-Bonhoeffer-Tillich9965

Finally, I know that none of this will change the minds or hearts of the so-called deniers or the minimizers. So be it, but to remain silent in the face of their claims is to repeat the sin of the majority of good Germans who looked the other way until it was too late.

I very much appreciate and concur with this post Podkarpatska (hopefully, and with joy, I will learn how to spell your name without thinking).